I don't know about atheists, but anarchists certainly lean that way. I know I'm certainly pro-post-term-abortion. I'm also pro-mass-graves. I'm also pro-mass-grave-memorial, for posterity's sake. I am thus, due to being pro-life, though not in the commonly politicized sense of being pro-life.

(14-04-2013 04:18 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: If an abortion is not wrong the first two pregnancies, why would it be wrong on the third? I don't understand this reasoning. It seems you and you sister in law have a limit on the immorality you are willing to tolerate before you want to unleash the baseball bat of justice.

As others said, the thing here is not "immorality" so much as the fact that abortion is not supposed to be a birth control method; it's a last resort when birth control has failed or was not used. If a person keeps getting them every month, then they obviously don't want a child and should be on birth control. Condoms and other birth control methods are hugely cheaper and less invasive than an abortion. Anyone in their right mind who doesn't want a kid should use other methods to avoid having an abortion if possible, if for no other reason than it's costly and invasive.

But yeah, what DLJ said: the problem is not immorality, it's stupidity.

As I've said, I am in favor of abortion being de-stigmatized. However, I am still in favor of people preventing the need for abortion by using birth control.

(14-04-2013 10:18 AM)Hobbitgirl Wrote: No outside person should have the right to force a woman to go through such a traumatic physical/psychological experience.

Force, no. But given the current law, for instance, in the U.S., should not the partner have some choice in the matter? And, if choice for such is removed from the equation, for whatever reason, should not the sexual partner responsible have some immunity from legal recourse, if their choice is forbidden? Given that each are equally responsible for the pregnancy?